首先，不要讓這標題誤導，因為世貿是一個協調機制多於一個法院機制，雖然，它是可以作出裁決的。
中國被美國提請磋商請求後，相當氣惱，人民日報訪問了一位中國人民大學法學院教授劉春田，指「美方無權妄稱中國強制高技術轉讓」（註一）。他反駁說，中國已相繼修改了專利法、商標法、反不正當競爭法，並正在加緊著作權法的修改，所以已經很好，（但美方的提請是另外的一些法規），隨後，他又說，「2017年，中國發明專利申請超過130萬件，高於美國、歐盟、日本、韓國之和。」這是風馬牛不相及，由之，這是一篇廢料文章。
中國與美國的關係一直緊張，所以對美國的作法是意料之中，但歐盟在6月1日向世貿提出磋商請求，而且其範圍更廣，則令中方有點錯愕（註二）。
DS542
美國在今年3月23日提出磋商請求（DS542），指中國違反了世貿的知識產權相關的第三款和第二十八款。日本、歐盟、烏克蘭、沙特阿拉伯和中國台北要求加入磋商請求。（註三）
日本在其書面請求中表示：「日本是向中國出口技術的主要出口國之一。 近年來，日本公司向中國公司提供的技術約佔中國進口技術的20％（以合同數量計）。
日本也是外國人在中國擁有最多專利權的主要國家之一。 2015年，日本國民在中國申請專利權約4萬件，授予專利約36,000件。 」
世貿協議第三及第二十八款
第三款為國民待遇，其基本要求是外商與本地商人的待遇應均等，簽署國不能透過其本土立法制做這不平等。（註五）
第二十八款是保障專利持有人的權利，基本上為持有人有權決定其專利如何被使用和決定如何轉讓或租用（註六）。
美方指控
美國的DS542指控包括：
1. 中外合資經營企業法（1979年7月1日）及其修訂；
2. 中外合資經營企業法實施條例（1983年9月20日）及修訂；
3. 對外貿易法（1994年5月12日）及其修訂；
4. 合同法（1999年3月15日）及其修訂；
5. 技術進出口管理條例（2001年12月10）及其修改（註7）。
指控理據
1.「技術進出口管理條例」抵觸TRIPS協定第3條（國民待遇）和第28.2條，因為：技術進出口管理條例第24條要求外國專利持有人負起所有可能被侵權責任的賠償（註8）；
2. 「技術進出口管理條例」第二十七條要求技術的改進屬於改進方（註9）；
3. 第29（3）條 讓中方可以隨意改進進口技術及使用改進技術 （註10）；
「中外合資經營企業法實施條例」抵觸TRIPS協議第3條（國民待遇）和第28條的規定，因為（註11）： 「條例」第四十三條第四款規定中國合資方有權在合同到期後繼續使用被轉讓的技術。
歐盟請求
歐盟的6月1 日的DS549 的指控幅度更大。它不單指控中國抵觸世貿知識產權協定TRIPS 的第三條和第二十八條，它進一步指控中國抵觸第二十九和三十三條及一九九四年關稅及貿易總協定的第十條第3款a （註12）。
第二十九條基本上為專利權維持20年；第三十三條基本上為，法定人或自然人必須為專利技術保密。
一九九四年關稅及貿易總協定的第十條為「貿易規管的出版和管理」。其第3款a 基本上規定合約各方應在法例、規定、決定和裁決上平等；政府和規管單位不能借故索取專利的機密。
所涉及的中國法規
歐盟請求比美國的所涉及的中國法律文書更廣，它們包括美國之前提出的：
1. 對外貿易法;
2.「技術進出口管理條例」;
3「技術進出口合同登記管理辦法」;
4.「中外合資經營企業法」;
5.「中外合資經營企業法實施條例」;
6.「合同法」。
之外，還加上：
1.「知識產權境外轉讓工作辦法（試行）」（2018年3月18日）;
2. 最高人民法院關於審理技術合同糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的解釋（最高人民法院於2004年12月16日發布，自2005年1月1日起施行）的司法解釋;
3. 「反不正當競爭法」（2018年1月1日生效）;
4. 反壟斷法（2008年8月1日）;
5.工商總局關於禁止濫用市場支配地位的法規（2011年2月1日）;
6.關於禁止通過濫用知識產權進行消除或限制競爭的行為的規定（2015年4月7日）;
7. 國務院關於印發「中國製造2025」的通知（2015年5月8日）;
8.「科學技術進步法」（2008年7月1日）;
9.「關於鼓勵技術引進和創新促進貿易增長方式轉變的意見」，2006年7月14日;
10. 「關於促進科技服務業發展的若干意見」（2014年10月28日）;
11.「中華人民共和國技術進出口管理條例」國務院法制辦公室財務法律部2002年4月問答;
12. 中國實施和管理上述限制的未公開措施。
具體而言
歐盟除了提請美國提請的「技術進出口管理條例」的第24、27和29條外（註14），它還提請其第18至21條抵觸世貿協議。
它還指控「技術進出口管理條例」的第18至21條。這4條基本上為外資專利輸入的登記。歐盟指控中國利用其國務院外經貿主管部門辦理登記，甚至海關，銀行等之便，套取專利機密（註15）。
歐盟除了提請美國的對「中外合資經營企業法實施條例」 第四十三條抵觸世貿協定。它還指中國的輸入專利的10年專利權違反了TRIPS協定第33條的「專利保護的期限應至少為20年」的規定。
歐盟除了指控中國違背了1994年關貿總協定第10條第3款（a）之外，它還指中國違反了「中華人民共和國加入世貿組織議定書」第2（A）的承諾。這承諾基本上為中國應統一規範其相關規定（註16），而「中國地方各級政府的地方性法規、規章及其他措施應符合在《ＷＴＯ協定》和本議定書中所承擔的義務。」
討論
歐盟加入戰圈對中國相當不利，正如歐盟所言，「中國利用其法律，法規和其他措施，利誘外國技術向中國轉讓，而不顧其法規的公正和合理性。」
但說到底，只有在雙方願意守規矩的時候，世貿才有用。在美國特朗普和中國的影響下，世貿已嚴重塞車。從美國控中國的DS553的3月23日至最新的6月18日，世貿可收到11個磋商請求。而且，世貿的殺手鐧是對敗訴者增加進口關稅，但在貿易戰中，沒有人理會進口的。
誠然，西方成日利用規條找著數，但商業和國際關係本來如是。中國在未能進入決議機制之前，應該遵守國際常規，否則它永遠在地球村的外圍徘徊，楚楚可憐地喊美國霸權亡國之心不死。歐盟是多個國家的集合體，一向與中國的關係良好。今次歐盟提出比美國更嚴厲的磋商請求，中國是時候躬身自省才能修德進業了。
總的來說，筆者估計中國在未來的世貿裁判中會敗訴。從剛開始的中美關稅較量中，在最近一周，恒指跌了3.2%，國指跌了4.5%，美國的標普500期貨指數只跌了1%，從此可看出中國企業無法抵住貿易戰的衝擊。
習近平今次錯了！
備註
註一
——訪中國人民大學法學院教授劉春田
本報記者 王 珂
《 人民日報 》（ 2018年06月22日 02 版）
美國對華「301調查」結果中，對於中國智慧財產權保護方面的指責，尤其是脫離法治的軌道和國際規則體系來指責中方盜竊智慧財產權、強制高技術轉讓，引發廣泛關注。「美方說法無異於信口雌黃！」中國人民大學法學院教授劉春田在接受本報記者專訪時說。
劉春田認為，美國「301調查」報告中沒有提出證據證明中國法律規定外國企業必須轉讓技術給中國合作夥伴，也沒有證據證明中國違反其在世貿組織做出的承諾，以技術轉讓作為外資市場准入的前提條件。美國「301調查」不顧中國實際情況和多年來在智慧財產權保護方面的努力，以「莫須有」的方式指責中國侵害美國的智慧財產權，不負責任。
美方所指技術轉讓問題，不是政府行為，而是企業間的合同問題。兩國企業之間的合作，平等互利，各展所長，各取所需，這是一個雙方自主商議、決定的過程。美國企業對華技術轉讓是正常的商業行為，是企業雙向選擇和自主決策的結果，不能把正常的商業交易行為視作政府採購的強制行為。技術需要市場實現其價值。中美企業間的技術交易，是互通有無，平等互利，雙方都是交易受益人。眾所周知，美國既是高技術強國，又精於市場經濟，還是技術交易裡手，不會輕易在一個發展中國家的企業面前失手。事實上也是如此，迄今為止，我們沒有看到一件美方企業的高技術被強制轉讓到中方企業的例證。
劉春田說，在不少領域，美方企業技術確實先進。中方企業希望通過合作，學習和引進先進的技術並消化、吸收，通過深度研發獲得更新的技術，從而增強自身進一步發展的力量，這符合自然法則，符合技術進步的規律，也是人之常情。中西方均循此理。美國也不是天生先進，也要向其他國家學習。只要正當，任何國家都有權利對合法取得的技術再度開發研究，並從中獲得正當權益。
「市場准入與強制技術轉讓是截然不同的問題。」劉春田說，美國指責中國的合資合作要求、股比限制和行政審批程式，實質是針對中國的市場准入制度，與強制技術轉讓無關。美方這樣做明顯是混淆概念。事實上，世貿組織成員有權對市場准入做出保留，這些保留體現在成員的入世承諾中，是包括美國在內的多數成員的普遍做法。「美方指責脫離了實際情況，脫離了國際規則體系的標準，有任性之虞。」
近年來，中國智慧財產權法治建設不斷完善，智慧財產權保護實現了「質」的轉變。加入世貿組織後，中國主動完善智慧財產權法律體系，相繼修改了專利法、商標法、反不正當競爭法，並正在加緊著作權法的修改。中國僅花了3年多的時間就建立了3個智慧財產權法院和15個智慧財產權法庭，有效提高了中國智慧財產權的司法水準。還實施了國家智慧財產權戰略，顯著提高了全民智慧財產權意識。2017年，中國發明專利申請超過130萬件，高於美國、歐盟、日本、韓國之和。商標註冊更是大幅攀升。
「這些都是最靠譜的措施，也更基礎、更根本和更具持久效力，其目的旨在建立完善的智慧財產權保護體系。據我所知，世界上沒有哪一個國家像中國政府那樣在保護智慧財產權上付出如此大的努力，其效果之顯著有目共睹。我敢保證，美國智慧財產權界的同仁認同我的意見。」劉春田說。
劉春田認為，智慧財產權既是財產，也是企業競爭手段。互聯網時代，技術進步交叉發展，重疊與衝突在所難免。包括美國在內的各國，企業之間智慧財產權糾紛層出不窮，越是發達國家越是頻發。這是技術進步對經濟增長貢獻明顯的突出表現。高技術領域權利關係錯綜複雜，爭議司空見慣，幾乎成為規律。尤其知名大企業之間，智慧財產權更是糾紛多發、訴訟不斷。其中，很難輕易說哪家企業是純粹的被害者，哪家是純粹的侵權人。在法治社會中，這些均由法律途徑解決，企業自有辦法，而非政府插手可以奏效。美國既是市場國家又是法治社會，美國政府應該明白這個基本道理。
劉春田說，市場經濟下，尊重經濟運行的基本規律和法治才是正道。智慧財產權屬於私權，私權糾紛自有法治管道。所以，首先應當區分國家行為、企業行為和個人行為。企業或個人行為，不應記到國家頭上。面對企業之間的跨國糾紛，美國政府棄正常的法律途徑和國際規則不用，由政府走到前臺，單方面動用其國內法律「301條款」，把國家當成制裁的對象，有違法治，實屬任性妄為。
註二
商務部就歐盟將我技術轉讓措施
訴諸世貿爭端解決機制發表談話
《 人民日報 》（ 2018年06月04日 03 版）
本報北京6月3日電 （記者王珂）6月1日，歐盟在世貿組織爭端解決機制項下要求與中方進行磋商，啟動世貿組織爭端解決程式。歐方稱中國政府有關技術轉讓措施不符合《與貿易有關的智慧財產權協定》等世貿組織規則的相關規定。商務部條約法律司負責人3日就此發表談話時表示，中方已經收到歐方提出的磋商請求。中國政府一向高度重視智慧財產權保護，採取了眾多強有力的措施保護國內外智慧財產權權利人的合法權益，取得的成績有目共睹。在智慧財產權合作方面，中歐雙方建立了智慧財產權工作組機制。通過這一機制，中歐雙方一直保持著有效溝通，在諸多領域取得了積極成果。中方對歐方提出起訴表示遺憾，將根據世貿組織爭端解決程式進行妥善處理。
商務部條約法律司負責人就歐盟將我技術轉讓措施訴諸世貿爭端解決機制發表談話
商務部新聞辦公室
2018-06-03 19:40
6月1日，歐盟在世貿組織爭端解決機制項下要求與中方進行磋商，啟動世貿組織爭端解決程式。歐方稱中國政府有關技術轉讓措施不符合《與貿易有關的智慧財產權協定》等世貿組織規則的相關規定。商務部條約法律司負責人就此發表談話。
中方已經收到歐方提出的磋商請求。中國政府一向高度重視智慧財產權保護，採取了眾多強有力的措施保護國內外智慧財產權權利人的合法權益，取得的成績有目共睹。在智慧財產權合作方面，中歐雙方建立了智慧財產權工作組機制。通過這一機制，中歐雙方一直保持著有效溝通，在諸多領域取得了積極成果。中方對歐方提出起訴表示遺憾，將根據世貿組織爭端解決程式進行妥善處理。
註三
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
DS542: China — Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
Complainant: United States
Respondent: China
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)
Intellectual Property (TRIPS): Art. 3, 28.1(a), 28.1(b), 28.2
Request for Consultations received: 23 March 2018
The United States claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with:
Articles 3, 28.1(a) and (b) and 28.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
On 3 April 2018, Japan requested to join the consultations. On 4 April 2018, the European Union and Ukraine requested to join the consultations. On 5 April 2018, Saudi Arabia and Chinese Taipei requested to join the consultations.
註四
Japan
Second, Japan has been one of the major exporters of technology to China. In recent years, the technology provided by Japanese companies to Chinese companies accounted for about 20% of the technology imported into China (in terms of number of contracts).3 Thus Japan is one of the largest stakeholders in technology transfer to China.
Third, Japan is also one of the major foreign countries whose nationals possess patent rights in China. For example, in 2015, Japanese nationals filed approximately 40,000 applications for patent rights4 and approximately 36,000 patents were granted.5 As such, these patent rights possessed by Japanese nationals in China are subject to China's technology transfer laws, regulations and other measures.
註五
Article 3
National Treatment
1. Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection (3) of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively, the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention or the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. In respect of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations, this obligation only applies in respect of the rights provided under this Agreement. Any Member availing itself of the possibilities provided in Article 6 of the Berne Convention (1971) or paragraph 1(b) of Article 16 of the Rome Convention shall make a notification as foreseen in those provisions to the Council for TRIPS.
2. Members may avail themselves of the exceptions permitted under paragraph 1 in relation to judicial and administrative procedures, including the designation of an address for service or the appointment of an agent within the jurisdiction of a Member, only where such exceptions are necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement and where such practices are not applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.
註六
Article 28
Rights Conferred
1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:
(a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the acts of: making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes that product;
(b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to prevent third parties not having the owner’s consent from the act of using the process, and from the acts of: using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained directly by that process.
2. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession, the patent and to conclude licensing contracts.
註七
CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES
The following communication, dated 23 March 2018, from the delegation of the United States to the delegation of China and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement") (to the extent that Article 64 corresponds to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994), with respect to certain Chinese measures pertaining to the protection of intellectual property rights.
China denies foreign patent holders the ability to enforce their patent rights against a Chinese joint-venture party after a technology transfer contract ends. China also imposes mandatory adverse contract terms that discriminate against and are less favorable for imported foreign technology. Therefore, China deprives foreign intellectual property rights holders of the ability to protect their intellectual property rights in China as well as freely negotiate market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related contracts.
The legal instruments through which China imposes these measures include the following, operating separately or collectively:
• Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China (adopted at the Eighth Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress on May 12, 1994, effective July 1, 1994, in Executive Order No. 22, amended by the Eighth Session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on April 6, 2004, effective July 1, 2004, in Executive Order No. 15, further amended November 7, 2016, in Executive Order No. 57)
• Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies (Order of the State Council No. 331, issued December 10, 2001, effective January 1, 2002, amended January 8, 2011, in Order of the State Council No. 588)
• Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures (adopted at the Second Session of the Fifth National People's Congress on July 1, 1979, effective July 8, 1979, in Order No. 7 of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, amended April 4, 1990, in Executive Order No. 27, further amended March 15, 2001, in Executive Order No. 48, and September 3, 2016, in Executive Order No. 51)
• Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures (State Council, Guo Fa [1983] No. 148, issued September 20, 1983, effective September 20, 1983, amended January 15, 1986, in Guo Fa [1986] No. 6, further amended December 21, 1987, in Guo Fa [1987] No. 110, July 22, 2001, in Order of the State Council No. 311, January 8, 2011, in Order of the State Council No. 588, and February 19, 2014, in Order of the State Council No. 648)
• Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (adopted at the Second Session of the Ninth National People's Congress on March 15, 1999, effective October 1, 1999, in Executive Order No. 15) as well as any amendments, or successor, replacement, or implementing measures.
The Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies, operating separately or together with other listed instruments, appear to be inconsistent with Article 3 (National Treatment) of the TRIPS Agreement, solely or in conjunction with Article 28.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, because:
• Article 24 of the Regulations accords less favorable treatment to foreign intellectual property rights holders as compared to Chinese intellectual property rights holders. For example, Article 24 requires that licensors to imported technology contracts indemnify licensees for all liabilities for infringement resulting from the use of the transferred technology.
• Article 27 of the Regulations accords less favorable treatment to foreign intellectual property rights holders as compared to Chinese intellectual property rights holders. For example, Article 27 requires that any improvements in imported technology belong to the party making the improvement.
• Article 29 of the Regulations accords less favorable treatment to foreign intellectual property rights holders as compared to Chinese intellectual property rights holders. For example, Article 29(3) prohibits an imported technology license contract from restricting a Chinese party from improving the technology or from using the improved technology.
The Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures, operating separately or together with other listed instruments, appear to be inconsistent with Article 3 (National Treatment) of the TRIPS Agreement, solely or in conjunction with Article 28.1(a), (b) or Article 28.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, because:
• Article 43 of the Regulations accords less favorable treatment to foreign intellectual property rights holders as compared to Chinese intellectual property rights holders. For example, Article 43(4) provides a Chinese joint-venture party the right to continue to use technology transferred under a technology transfer contract after the expiration of the contract.
The Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures, operating separately or together with other listed instruments, appear to be inconsistent with Article 28.1(a), (b) of the TRIPS Agreement because:
• Article 43 of the Regulations denies foreign patent holders their exclusive rights, including to prevent third parties not having the foreign patent holder's consent from acts listed in Article 28.1(a), (b) of the TRIPS Agreement.1 For example, Article 43(4) provides a Chinese joint-venture party the right to continue to use technology transferred under a technology transfer contract after the expiration of the contract.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to scheduling a mutually convenient date for consultations.
註8
第二十四條 技術進口合同的讓與人應當保證自己是所提供技術的合法擁有者或者有權轉讓、許可者。
技術進口合同的受讓人按照合同約定使用讓與人提供的技術，被協力廠商指控侵權的，受讓人應當立即通知讓與人；讓與人接到通知後，應當協助受讓人排除妨礙。
技術進口合同的受讓人按照合同約定使用讓與人提供的技術，侵害他人合法權益的，由讓與人承擔責任。
註9
第二十七條 在技術進口合同有效期內，改進技術的成果屬於改進方。
註10
第二十九條 技術進口合同中，不得含有下列限制性條款：
（三）限制受讓人改進讓與人提供的技術或者限制受讓人使用所改進的技術；
註11
第四十三條 合營企業訂立的技術轉讓協議，應當報審批機構批准。
技術轉讓協議必須符合下列規定：
（四）技術轉讓協議期滿後，技術輸入方有權繼續使用該項技術；
註12
Article 33
Term of Protection
The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years counted from the filing date
Article 39
1. In the course of ensuring effective protection against unfair competition as provided in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967), Members shall protect undisclosed information in accordance with paragraph 2 and data submitted to governments or governmental agencies in accordance with paragraph 3.
2. Natural and legal persons shall have the possibility of preventing information lawfully within their control from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices (10) so long as such information:
(a) is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question;
(b) has commercial value because it is secret; and
(c) has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret.
GATT 1994
Article I: General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
Article X: Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations
1. Laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application, made effective by any contracting party, pertaining to the classification or the valuation of products for customs purposes, or to rates of duty, taxes or other charges, or to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports or exports or on the transfer of payments therefor, or affecting their sale, distribution, transportation, insurance, warehousing inspection, exhibition, processing, mixing or other use, shall be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them. Agreements affecting international trade policy which are in force between the government or a governmental agency of any contracting party and the government or governmental agency of any other contracting party shall also be published. The provisions of this paragraph shall not require any contracting party to disclose confidential information which would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private.
3. (a) Each contracting party shall administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner all its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings of the kind described in paragraph 1 of this Article.
註13
The legal instruments through which China imposes and administers these measures, include the following, operating separately or collectively:
• Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted at the Eighth Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People’s Congress on May 12, 1994, effective July 1, 1994, in Executive Order No. 22, amended by the Eighth Session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress on April 6, 2004, effective July 1, 2004, in Executive Order No. 15, further amended November 7, 2016, in Executive Order No. 57);
• Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies (Order of the State Council No. 331, issued December 10, 2001, effective January 1, 2002, amended January 8, 2011, in Order of the State Council No. 588);
• Measures for the Administration of Registration of Technology Import and Export Contracts of the People's Republic of China, Decree of the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China [2009] No. 3, issued December 30, 2001, effective January 1, 2002 (repealing the Measures for the Administration of Technology Import and Export Contracts Registration (Decree No. 17, 2001 of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation);
• Working Measures for Outbound Transfer of Intellectual Property Rights (For Trial Implementation), (State Council, Guo Ban Fa [2018] No. 19, issued March 18, 2018, effective March 29, 2018);
• Law of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures (adopted at the Second Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress on July 1, 1979, effective July 8, 1979, in Order No. 7 of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, amended April 4, 1990, in Executive Order No. 27, further amended March 15, 2001, in Executive Order No. 48, and September 3, 2016, in Executive Order No. 51);
• Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures (State Council, Guo Fa [1983] No. 148, issued September 20, 1983, effective September 20, 1983, amended January 15, 1986, in Guo Fa [1986] No. 6, further amended December 21, 1987, in Guo Fa [1987] No. 110, July 22, 2001, in Order of the State Council No. 311, January 8, 2011, in Order of the State Council No. 588, and February 19, 2014, in Order of the State Council No. 648);
• Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China (adopted at the Second Session of the Ninth National People’s Congress on March 15, 1999, effective October 1, 1999, in Executive Order No. 15);
• Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court concerning Some Issues on Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Disputes over Technology Contract (Judicial interpretation promulgated by Supreme People's Court on 16 December 2004 and effective as of 1 January 2005);
• Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (Order of the President of the People's Republic of China No. 77, adopted on November 4, 2017, effective January 1, 2018);
• Anti-Monopoly Law (Order of the President of the People's Republic of China No. 68 adopted on August 30, 2007, effective August 1, 2008);
• Regulations of December 31, 2010, for the Industry and Commerce Administrations on the Prohibition of Abuse of Dominant Market Position (issued by Order No. 54 of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC), adopted on December 31, 2010, effective February 1, 2011);
• Regulation on the Prohibition of Conduct Eliminating or Restricting Competition by Abusing Intellectual Property Rights (Order No. 74 of April 7, 2015, of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), adopted on April 7, 2015, effective August 1, 2015);
• Notice of the State Council on Printing and Distributing the "China Manufacturing 2025", (State Council, Guo Fa [2015] No.28, promulgated May 8, 2015, effective May 8, 2015);
• Law of the People’s Republic of China on Progress of Science and Technology, (Order of the President of the People’s Republic of China, No. 82, amended and adopted at the 31st Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on December 29, 2007, effective July 1, 2008);
• Opinions on Encouraging Technology Importing and Innovation and Promoting Changes in Pattern of Trade Growth, July 14, 2006;
• Several Opinions of October 9, 2014, of the State Council on Promotion of the Development of the Science and Technology Service Industry (promulgated by Order No. 49 of October 28, 2014, of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China);
• Questions and Answers around Regulations on Administration of Technology Import and Export of People’s Republic of China, Finance Law Department of the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council, April 2002;
• Unpublished measures through which China imposes and administers the above referred restrictions;
• as well as any amendments, supplements, extensions, replacement measures, renewal measures, related measures, or implementing measures.
註14
In particular:
- The Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies ("TIER"), operating separately or together with other listed instruments, appear to be inconsistent with Article 3 (National Treatment) of the TRIPS Agreement, solely or in conjunction with Article 28.1(a) and (b), Article 28.2 and Article 39.1 and 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement respectively, because China imposes restrictions on the rights of foreign intellectual property right holders, notably, on their right to freely negotiate and agree on market-based contractual terms in licensing and other technology-related contracts concerning the import of technology to China. For example,
• Foreign transferors of technology are subject to certain administrative burdens pursuant to Articles 18 through 21 TIER. Notably, all technology import contracts must be notified to and registered by the Chinese authorities and copies of the contracts must be provided. These formalities apply also if the contract is subsequently amended or terminated.
• Article 24 TIER requires that licensors of imported technology indemnify licensees for all liabilities for infringement resulting from the use of the transferred technology.
• Article 27 TIER requires that any improvements to imported technology belong to the party making the improvement.
• Article 29 TIER appears to restrict the terms of import technology contracts by prohibiting a number of clauses in import technology transfer contracts. In particular, Article 29(3) TIER provides that a technology import contract cannot contain clauses restricting the transferee from improving the technology supplied by the supplying party, or restricting the receiving party from using the improved technology.
Domestic intellectual property right holders are not subject to such restrictions in the context of domestic technology transactions. As a result, through the measures at issue China appears to accord less favourable treatment to foreign intellectual property right holders compared to Chinese intellectual property right holders, contrary to Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement. In addition, it appears to limit the exclusive rights of non-Chinese patent holders, contrary to Article 28.1(a) and (b) of the TRIPS Agreement. It also appears to limit the rights of non-Chinese patent holders to assign or transfer by succession patents and to conclude licensing contracts, contrary to Article 28.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Finally, as a result of these restrictions China also appears not to ensure effective protection for foreign intellectual property rights holders of undisclosed information contrary to its obligations under Article 39.1 and 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
- The Regulations for the Implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures ("JV Regulation"), operating separately or together with other listed instruments, appear to be inconsistent with Article 3 (National Treatment) of the TRIPS Agreement, Article 28.1(a) and (b), Article 28.2, Article 33 and Article 39.1 and 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (each Article either solely or in conjunction with the others), because China imposes restrictions on the rights of foreign intellectual property right holders, notably, on their right to freely negotiate and agree on market-based contractual terms in licensing and other technology-related contracts concerning the import of technology to China. For example:
• The first paragraph of Article 43 of the JV Regulation provides a general examination and approval requirement for any technology transfers agreements entered into by a joint venture.
• Point (3) of the second paragraph to Article 43 of the JV Regulation provides that the duration of a technology transfer agreement is generally no longer than 10 years.
• Point (4) of the second paragraph to Article 43 of the JV Regulation provides that the technology importing party retains the right to use the transferred technology continuously, after the expiration of the technology transfer agreement.
China thus appears to afford less favourable treatment to foreign intellectual property rights holders as compared to Chinese intellectual property rights holders, contrary to Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement. With respect to foreign patent holders, China appears to violate Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement, according to which the term of patent protection should be at least 20 years, and to limit the exclusive rights of foreign patent holders, contrary to Article 28.1(a) and (b) of the TRIPS Agreement. Furthermore, China appears to limit the rights of foreign patent holders to assign or transfer by succession patents and to conclude licensing contracts, contrary to Article 28.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Furthermore, as a result of these restrictions China also appears not to ensure effective protection for foreign intellectual property rights holders of undisclosed information contrary to its obl